Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-1972 City Council Minutes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, October 4, 1972 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bridges, Diridon, Dwyer, Kraus and Smith Absent: None B. MINUTES September 20~ 1972 -.Page 9, Item VI, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, Re: Demonstration Bicycle Route System - Correction to reflect that an additional $15,000 is budgeted toward the bikeways system, for a total of $30,000. It was moved and seconded that the minutes of September 20, 1972, be approved, noting the above correction. The motion was carried. September 26~ 1972 - Page 1, Item II, BIDS AND CONTRACTS, Re: Realignment of Saratoga Creek at Wildwood Park - Correction to read: In 1966, there was a proposed a~reement . . Page 1, Paragraph 3, corrected to indicate that the property owners had rescinded the earlier agreements. Page 2, Paragraph 2, corrected to indicate that the engineering work would continue on the creek, with the bid opening to be delayed to next spring. It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Bridges that the minutes of September 26, 1972, be ap.pr6ved as corrected. The' motion was carried. II. BIDS AND CONTRACTS A. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT Upon the recommendation of the. CitX M.a~ager to delay the award of the contract for 2 weeks in o~der tO make a proper analysis of thee bid, it was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus to postpone acceptance of the Landscape Maintenance Contract until the next regular meeting. The motion was carried. B. REFLECTORIZED MARKERS Councilman Rraus ~oved that the low bid of Gee-Gee Parking Lot Striping be withdrawn as requested and that authori'zation be granted to re-advertise for bids; the motion was seconded by Councflman Dwyer and carried. C. BANKMILL ROAD SLOPE~STABILIZATION The Director of Public Works indicated that 4 bids were received and opened on October 2, 1972, ranging from $6,058'. to $7,430. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Diridob that the low bid from B & C Inc. Contractors, in the amount .of $6,058, be accepted; the motion was carried. D. PIERCE ROAD SLIDE REPAIR The bids for this contract were opened On October 3, 1972. There were 5 bids · received, ranging from $8,642 to $27,168. It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Kraus that the low bid from Power Anderson, in the amount of $8,642, be accepted. The motion was carried. ·PETITIONS, ORDINANCES & FORMAL RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 638 - Resolution Requelsting the DireCtor of 'Public Works of the · State of Califorlnia to Require ~e~tificate of Zoning Com- pliance as a Prerequisite to Advertising~Display Permit It was moved by Councilman Bridges an~ seconded by .Councilman Dwyer that R~solution No.· 638 be adopted. The ~otion was carried.' B. RESOLUTION NO. 85-9.6 - Resolution Amending Resolution 85-9.4, A~ding to Basic Salary Classes, Employment Position ClasSifications and Compensation'Schedule forTEmployees of the City of Saratoga" It was moved by Councilman-Kraus and seconded by Councilman'Bridges that Resolution No. 85-9.6 be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. SDR-619-2, Thomas B. Fryer - Resolution Accepting Dedication of Right-of-Way It was moved by Councilman Dwyer and seconded by Councilman Bridges that Resolution No. SDR-619-2 be adopted. l The motion was carried. IV. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES AND ZONING REQUESTS A. SDR-989 - CHARLES A. BEASLEY, LOMA RIO DRIVE - 1 LOT It was moved by Councilman Kraus and ~econded by Councilman Dwyer that Resolution No. SDR-989-1, ~ranting Final Building Site Approval, be adopted. The motion was carried. B. SD-978 NOORUDIN BILLAWALA, MONTALVO ROAD & HILL AVE., l LOT for·Reconslderatzon_of Conditionse u c ~ - ~ _ ~e'Cfty~'~d~'~'~d~e~at~Mr'."Bfrl~ala had requested that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Dwyer that-this request be granted. The motion was carried. C. TRACT 4955 - SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP., FRUITVALE AVE. - 9 LOTS It was moved by Cohncilman Diridon and seconded by Councilman Bridges that Resolution No. SD-990-1, approving Final Map, be adopted; the motion was carried. D. TRACT 5243 - OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES, INC., ALLENDALE AVE. - 16 LOTS' It was moved by Councilman*Bridges that .Resolution No. SD-961-1, appr~ving Final Map, be adopted, with the inclusion Of Page~6', Paragraph 10, of the Contract for Improvement, which indicates that improvement on the south half of Allendal~ ~venue should be indluded ,C~wi~h~ ~af!~g~_up-to SY5,~ ~ .such improvements, wh~'~~i~er. improves 6h~ h~t~Th~~ V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RESOLUTION N0.63~ - Resolution Approving Form of Resolution of Intention and Boundary Map, and Granting Consent' of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to County Sanitation District No. 4 of Santa Clara County to Undertake Pro- ceedings to Construct a Sanitary Sewerage Project and to Provide that the Cost Shall Be Assessed on the District ~ Benefited Under Appropriate Special ASsessment and Assessment Bond ~Proceedings - 2 - Continued - RESOLUTION NO. 636 Mayor Smith explained that this is a~new proposed sewerage project, and the purpose of the public hearing is so that the residents who are going to be affected by this new project can give their viewpoints on the subject. Steve Goodman; Manager and Engineer,.Sanitation District No. 4, ~xplained that Sanitary Sewerage Project No. 1972-3~i~%~ be comp~s~d~)of 2 units. Unit No. 1, which is being proposed tonight, i~'~81~!~-~36j~rcels, and"the estimated cost to each parcel wou~d approximate $1,028. He explained that if the City sees f~t to allow the Sanitary District to proceed, they will submit the plans and the matter willgo before the Board of Directors for a protest hearing, and if ther~ is less than a majority ~rotest, the con- struction will proceed. Mr.'Goodman!indicated thatifthis is approved, construction will begin in late February or early March and isslated for completion 60 days thereafter.-' " Mr. Goodman explained that the project was'instigated upon the request of approximately 65% of the property owners in the area, and health 8fficials have found this area to contain several health hazards. CoUncilman Diridon indicated that in the past the biggest complaint dealt with the long period of time in which the road was torn up, and he inquired if the 60-day construction period codld be put into the contract. Mr. Goodman advised that the District does put.their specifications in the contract. He pointed out that thereis a 30-day period in which the trench set; IH~wev~~ ~o~ul'~5~"~ef~d'.~ ~nd would is allowed to the~--s_tF~e~ be passable. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. There were no further comments. Councilman Dwyer moved that the public hearing be closed; Councilman Bridges seconded the motion and it was carried. Councilman Diridon moved that ResOlution No. 636 be adopted; CoUncilman Kraus seconded the motion and it was carried. B. WARDELE ROAD - Continued from 9/6/72 The City Manager ~xplained that the Resolution of Intention to Abandon.~D Portions of Wardell Road was passed ~n September, and this(~d~l~cThearFng~ (c~let~h'~pr~cess ~Or abandonment if the City Council de~'~d~"to'~aak~ ~S~6i~e-action-f01~oWing the hearing. ~The public hearing was opened.at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Rolf Bondelie, representin~ Mr. Bernard Bogart of 20541 Wardell Road, indicated that they have sent through opposition to abandon the road as this seems to put a great deal of burden on Mr. Bogart. He explained that Mr. Bogart presently h~s 2 driveways~providing access to and from his property. Mr. Bondelie indicated that Mr. Bogart didn't know anything about this abandonment of Wardell Road until a short time ago when the equipment appeared on the road. He stated that it is Mr. Bogart's concern that if the road is abandoned, there would probably be a.fedce put down the middle, which would take up 1 or 2 building sites~and make it impossible for him to use part of his property potential at a f~ture date. Mayor Smith pointed out that there are 2 Bogart pieces shown on the map, and the piece in discussion ~eets with Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and is~considered "Old Wardell". Stan Walker, Director of Planning, i~dicated that the present zoning on this property would allow 'for development of 2 lots, but not 3. The Mayor inquired if Mr. Bogartwould have to gain access onto the highway even he developed 4 lots. Mr. ~commented that the main. driveway Mr. Bogart is using is on the other side, and he would have to, in some way, connect onto the new cul-de-Sac,. and he would have to ~o to Sunnyvale~Roa~ to use the old property. Councilman Bridges asked if this prgperty presently backs~O undeveloped land on the other side? Mr. Bogart replied that there is a house on this property. Mr. Jerry Lohr, Saratoga Foothills D~velopment Corporation, advised that it was not their proposal that the road be located where it is. Mr. Lohr continued by stating that they had two month~ of meetings'with the Planning Commission regarding 'the relocation of this road and that they tried very. carefully not to plug any access to%the property. He pointed~p~out that if Wardell is abandoned, Mr. Bogart wilI actually have more property add he would gain some square footage in the abandoned portion. Mr. Lohr advised that they as developers would be willing to pay Mr. Bogart more for the property than it originally was worthydue to the new configuration. MayoE Smith indicated that relocatiod was requested in-order'Ito line up these streets, and he felt that Mr. Bogart~was not going to have the access~problem which he anticipated. He felt that it may take a half-street or some special p~anning to get ~nto~this property, Bernie Turgeon, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, advised that this abandonment is coming up quite late, and that it should have come up when the map was recorded, as he is sure the City would not want to have.a mess during the winter. He further advised that he is going to have grading started this week as previously disc~sse~!. Councilman Dwyer moved that this.public hearing be continued to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 10; Councilman Bridges seconded the motion and it was carried. C. SANTACROCE PROPERTY, 14341 SOBEY ROAD The City Manager advised that Mr. Morris, the Cit~'s COde Enforcement '. Officer is present, as.well as two representati,es of the County Health Department, to represent this matter~ Mr. Morris advised that this problem concerns a leaking septic tank system at the address mentioned,' and 'that' since 19~0, complaints have been received by the Health Department. Mr. Morris .then' re~iewed~the. history of this violation. After receiving complaints in the early part of 1970,~the Health Department issued a letter requesting sanitary sewer connection. Approximately two months later, a second letter was sent, and Mr. Santacroce responded to this letter and indicated that the septic. tank problem had been corrected. Shortly thereafter, the City Attorney indicated that since the problem did not exist at the present time no a'ction could be taken to force a connection. In February, 1972, complaints were again received, and a letter was issued requesting correction of the problem. In March, Mr..Steve Goodman of Sanitation District ~4 advised that Mr. Santacroce could receive'District funds to help pay for sewer connection and Mr. Santacroce was informed of this; however, no correction was made of the problem. In July, Mr. Dorsey of Public Works ~easdred the distance between the Santacroce residence and the existing sewer, and shortly thereafter, the City Attorney issued a letter indicating that Mr. San~acroce had 60 days to connect~to the sewer. Mr. Santacroce obtained a cost estimate from Sanitation District #4, and the District advised that it would cost about $2,100 to connect to the sewer. -.4 - Mr. Richard Smith .of the County Health Department indicated that what this amounts to is that they. dont~t have any real reqord of what Mr. Santacroce has for a s~ptic tank system. He apparently has the original system which was installed, plus a second system, and when there is a problem, he will switch from one system to the other~ ~Th~ problem has been, in the past, that which relates to the 200 feet. Until! recently, th~ Health Department had thought the sewer was over 200 feet ih distance from his [es~dence. Mr. Smith further pointed out that th~ Healeh Department has been sampling this overflow and has ~ound it to be domestic sewage. rep~d~th~t 6 ~omplaints have been received in a period of 2 years. The Mayor then op~ned the public hearing. Mr. Nelson Walker stated that he is the neighbor who has the sewerage flowing onto his property. He indicated that his family moved into their present home the end of December and immediately planted about 200 small trees, and, at the present time, the trees are terribly stunted. He further indicated that there is a foot of water in the holes from which the stunted trees were removed, and this is directly across from the Sant~croce Property. Mr. Walker is of the opinion that the trees that di/~did so because of excessive water that has~_under~ : Councilman Diridon asked Mr. Walker if there have been any tests to determine whether or not this water is sewage. iMr. Walker was of the feeling.that tests would not necessarily tell anything because the water is being filtered; the problem is simply that there is too much water. Councilman Dwyer moved that the public hearing be closed; Councilman Kraus seconded the motion and it was carried. Councilman Bridges stated that he feels there should be very little question about this as we have testimon~ from ~he Health Department and Code Enforce- ment Officer that we do have sewage. , Faber Johnston, Cfty Attorney, advised that the problem is not simply the fact that we have s~wage overflow but that the existing sewer is within 200 feet of Santacroce~s ~esidence and, therefore', in violation. Councilman Kraus moved that this property be declared'a "public nuisance"; Councilman Diridon seconded the motion and it was carried. Mayor Smith suggested that the City s~nd Mr. Santacroce a letter informing him of the council~s action; he also felt that the matter-should be continued on Tuesday evening. It was unanimously agreed to continue at an Adjourned Meeting on September 10. D. PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE - Continued from 9/20/72 Mr. Kalvelage of the S~nta Clara?Ehapter of American Civil Liberties Union (~.C.L.U.) indicated that he and some of their board members are present this evening to convey their position on this matter. He indicated that they have 3 points . . . 1) The 30-day time limit effectively violates the first amendment; 2) The requirement of a $50 deposit violates the fourteenth amendment by favoring wealthy groups over less-wealthy groups; 3) the power~ reserved by the Council to waive any or all provisions of the ordinance violates equal protection rights. Mayor Smith'advised that the proposed, ordinance requires the 30-day notice only if there is to be amplifying equipment. - 5 - Mr. Michael Chatzky, Chairman of the Board jat A.C.L.U.', indicated that it is their feeling that Section 415 of.the Penal Code adequately covers the noise problem as it exists and that municipal government is able, through its police~Q.enforCey,this.~._~ Mr. Chatzky felt that the problem is in the way the ordinance is drafted as it appears to be.a little too broad, and it migBt be acceptable if it were re-drafted to eliminate the 30-day requirement and state that the $50 deposit could be waived. Annette Diveney of P.G.&E., indicated that what they would like is clari- fication on the section dealing with Emergencies. She was in question as to whether or not their ordinary methods involving underground cables, etc. would be included under this secti6B~ or if they would be required to 7&ome to the City for a permit. ~ Mayor Smith stated that essential activities are considered as Emergencies; however, it would be question of whether the ambient level exceeds what is allowed. Mr. Roger LueckL of the Good Government G~oup stated that the newspapers had somehow gotten the idea at the last council meeting that they'were not in favor Of the proposed Noise Ordinance; however, he wanted to point out that the Good Government Group is wh~lehea~tedly in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Kalvelage of A.C.L.U. Stated that there are 3 areas of concern~"7~.. 1) If, for e~ample, 2 parties come to the City Manager to request a rall~ on a given date, ~nd if he issues an'exception permit to one party and not to the other, this will create'problems; 2) There should be a section to waive the $50 fee ~equirement ih the event a poor person comes in to request a permit; 3) The City Manager may deny one activity over another atlhis discretion. Mayor Smith indicated that the deposit has justification, as it covers'cost of the ampl ifying equipment. He further indicated that he is as cpncerned about free access and use of the parks as A.C.L.U., but the problemlies with 'the police Cp~ The Mayor pointed out that the City is not trying to restrict human activity, but rather, to get the extremely offensive noise out of the parks. Councilman Iraus stated that he feels the City Manager ~should have a certai~ degreee of authority to exercise judgment. If the City Manager denies an exception permit, the party requestipg the permit has the right to appeal. this before the City Council. Mr. Turgeon, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, was of the opinion that if the Council was able to put together a good ordinance that can work, it would be beneficial, because complete freedom is~.'~aos".~ Mr. Katvelage stated that he doesn'tzknowwhat the intent of the'S50 is~ and h~ ~eiterated tbe~fact'~'that a poor person has a lesser chance of obtaining this amount of money. Mr. Kalvelage~ further stated that if this ordinance is passed, it will be considered as a misdemeanor. The City Attorney advised that this Ordinance woul~ b~=~added'to an ~ready- existing City Code. Councilman Dwyer moved that this matter be continued at a study session on Tuesday, Octobe~ 10, 1972; Councilmap Diridon seconded the motion and it was carried. - 6- E. 1972 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - Continuedz from 9/20/72 Mayor Smith indicated that the Council would begin the discussion with Item B, SpecialSItems, HOusingsElement - The 1972 General Plan Committee considers the draft Housipg Element as presented to the' Commission on January 24, 1972, adequate and r'ecommends its adoption as a part of the review. Mr. Walker, Director of Planning, explained that this was felt to be an interim housing element until a more.: p ' "3 ' ' g~ ~c~ui~be tom rehens~ve housXn elements . produced in the 1973 Plan. Retirement Housing - Mr. Walker indicated that the Staff~.h~s,'developed standards to include . . . i) densit~ for retirement developments 2) age limi[ation 3) parking 4) construction . . . and the Planning Commission is at a point where they should come up'with an ordinance at the next meeting, and this can be recommended to the Cbuncil within 1 to 1! months. Councilman Kraus inquired why the 5 particular~sit~were!~mentioned on the review report. Mr. Walker indicated:that the staff reviewed approximately 25 properties, and these 5 were thought to be most suitable for a retire- ment development, based on size, location, public transportation, etc. Councilman Kraus inquired if Item (a) is to be considered as most desirable for a retirement housing site. Councilman Diridon advised that he ~hs ~resent at the Planning Commission Meeting ~he~h%~'7~5~edt~d~i~'~uss~ that the Con~{s'~n~%hn'F[~intend t'~'~'~'s~g~['~'eo~es~sites o~ 6h~'~ other, but any one of these sites would be acceptable. Councilman Bridges indicated that these 5 selections were taken from a list of 25 properties at the time when we'were operating under an ordinance which calls for 5 acres or more, and .also,!there are some sites which are not 5 acres that may be considered more desirable than these 5. He further indicated that he is concerned about adding the Odd Fellows property without a lot more input from the.citizens. Stan Marshall, Plan~ing"ComnjissiQner,~state~ that a~ ~he most recent Sub- division Committee Meeting, it was determined'tHat 5 acres should be the minimum required area, and 10acres is desirable. He alsq pointed out that the range of r~[irement/h0using~runsi[he gamut from th~ viewpoint of the people. What we are trying to do is to find ~om~ medial plan,which would provide what the poeple are looking for, with the trade-off being the smaller the piece of property, the more the price. Jerry Lohr, Saratoga Foothills Development CorRoration, stated'that small acreages~are not ~ecessarily C~j.e exp,enSiv~a~l_~_r~r~aS~7'i~d~mall acreages can be more practical. H~at ther~'~Ve~'d~velopments within Saratoga that are under 5 acres and most of them are under 10 acres. He was of the feeling that to adopt a-minimum of 10 acres would bring problems. Mr. Lohr stated that the demand as h~ sees it calls for 25 to 30 units per year, and he indicated that he would like rio have the retirement housing open to small parcels. He Indicated tha~t~the_.__Odd Fellows parce~ was .z~d for Institutional use; however, ~hh'g'~as surp~i~' Eo'~l'n~'~atT[~is property is being advertised for various uses"'? ...... Councilman Diridon felt that we need to move out a little bid and not be so concentrated. He stated that the demand is for 200 to 300 units, to be increased 25 to 30 units annually, and also, that the demand is for. low to middle priced property. Councilman Bridges commented thatit concerns him that we really don't have the criteria set down to change our zoning map to include th~e ~retirement 'houSing!sites. Stan Marshall then commented that the Planning Commission is not suggesting that these lands be re-zoned, but only that when an acceptable plan is created, it becomes acceptable for retirement housing. He further commented that in any' given situation a land owner may be unwilling to earmark his .property; however, the needs of the City may'be completely different than the extremes. Mayor Smith commented that the Comm~si6n is asking the. Council to put these 6 locations into concrete language when we don't have the guidelines. Councilman Dwyer moved thatItems "a'! through '!e" be removed from the General Plan Review Report; 'Councilman Diridon seconded the' motion and it was carried. Item C, Accumulated Specific.Items, Geor~ian House - The City Manager advised that there has been a letter]received which relates~to this item from Mr. J. Barry Gr~y, requesting that ~onside~ation be given to rezoning this property from residential t~o prOfessional-administrative. Mr. Gray indicated~'th~t the dse fo~rof~ssion~l zoning would be for an investment brokerage house. It was his thought that this_would ~robablX be the best use for th~S l~n~.a~nd'that.~rof~s~o~na~ z~o~n~g ~woUld~be__ the least offensivelto eh~ surrounding residents. He further in~ica~ed that the brokerage house use would be a~low~density use and that there would be no additions made to the house. Councilman Dwyer inquired as to how many people Mr. Gray w6uld anticipate in this brokerage house. Mr. Gray replied that they would like to have a maximum of 10 people, ~lus ~uppo~Zhelp of 4. He further stated that Mrs. Smith, present owner of the Georgian House, is now in the mood tO sell, and that he believes she would have difficulty in finding someone to'purchase the house for residential use at this time. Councilman Bridges asked.if. Mr. Gray!thought there would be allot of customers coming to the brokerage house. Mr. Gray indicated that most of the business ~Duld be done on the telephone. Councilman Bridge~swas of the feelin~ that it is rather late for this re~or~L~6fai~y new proposal, ~nd that ehey sh~dld make an appli- Mayor Smith'explained to Mr. Gray that the Council is going ehrough a series of reviews of the 1972 General Plan Review, and that it'would be difficult without more public input to go ahead with any changes now. He continued by indicating that the concensus is that there is goingto have to be more study on this matter. The Mayor advised Mr. Gray that the 1973 General Plan study will probably begin in another 2 or 3 months, and if be didn't go that that direction, he could make application with the Planning Commission. He further indicated that it would real~ly be unfair to make such an important d~cision on this piece. of property at this time. No action was t~ken on this ~ubject.Z Visitor-Commercial (C-V)!- The GenerZal Plan Committeeshas recommended an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so as to limit the number of square feet of floor space for a sin le use to a maximum of 1-2,000 square feet. No action was taken on t~is subject. MWM Property - There has been a request for change of zoning from P-A (Professional) to Commercial zoning.~ Mrs.'McWhinney of McWhinney, Whatley and'Milner, Inc.~stated that she feels the area should be zoned Commercial.~ She further stated that she doesn't like the idea of an empty lot and a:vacant building. Mrs. McWhinn~y indi- cated that there'has been a letter from Mr. Oldham sent to the Planning Commission requesting reZoning.. She indicated that it was her understanding that the reason this property had been zoned Professional in the .first place ® - 8 - is because of the medical building; however, now the doctors are all moving to the hospitals. She indicated that!they cannot do anything with the property the way it is and that the area on Cox and Saratoga A~enues which is zoned Professional is vacant, as well.as Professional zoned property on Big Basin Way. Firs. McWhinney indicated that uBder Cormnercial Zoning, Professional ~an still be put in, but under ProfesSional zoning, Professional only can be put in. Mayor Smith advise~ that this was reviewed, and it was the qonclusion that it should be!~Commercial on the west side and to restrict use of the area~ because it had a better transition at .that time. Fir. Walker of the Planning Department indicated that the Planning Commission had 2 basic reasons for this zoning . . ~ 1) This is basically Professional Administrative area; 2) This corner-wo~ld be hazardess for commercial traffic. No action was taken on this subject. Teresi - Smith Property - Fir. Lohr.of Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., indicated that they have h~d an application with the City for a year for re~oning for use for ~etirement housing, and that they had been told that they could go ahead and apply for R~M-3000 zoning. Fir. Walker stated that Fir. Lohr had been advised that they should apply for R-M-3000, but that it would probably be denied. He,was further advised that it would be reviewed at the. ti~e the Retirement Housing zoning was established. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Walke~'~Ifthe Retirement Housing Ordinance is passed in November for Multiple zoning,.W0~ld~it have~to be'said that thisdoesn~ conform to the General Plan2" Fir. Walker stated that the Planning Commission has made the point that they wanted a cohesive package, and there would have to be a multi-stepping activity. ~.~ Counqilman Bridges commented that he ,rearly ~oesn't~s~e ..where we could have this consistency.'- - ~ ~ Mayor Smith commented that we could hold open the retirement element and consider retirement and zoning at the same time. Stan MarShall was of the, feeling that ~y thelnext meeting everyone will have had a chance to review the guidelines and be ready to put them into No action was taken on this subject. Dempsey Property and Sixth and Bi~Basin Way - Fir. Stan Walker advised that there was a.staff re~ort to the Planning Conmission, recommending that the General Plan be changed to designate the land use for this property as 'Multiple, and there was a "tie vote" by the Conmission, and therefore, no .vote. The Mayor advised that the front portion is ~oned Visitor-Commercial and the back is Commercial. He was of the feeling that this is the kind of decision we would have to postpone to the 1973 Review; however, he agrees with the Planning ~irector's report on this matder. Fir. Walker;advised that there has been no opposition expressed from residents in the area for changing 6hi~ zoning to Multiple. Councilman Kraus moved that the best use for this property would be Multiple zoning and that the area be re-designated for this zoning; Councilman Dwyer seconded the motion and it was carried. - 9 - Walnut Avenue - No changes recommended. No action taken on this subject.. Galeb Property - It has been recommended to chang~ this to t~e new d~plex designation. No action taken. Kosich Property~- No changes reconmended. No action taken. Falcone-Orlando Properties - No. change recommended. No action takenv Saratoga Village Circulation - It hasI been recommended that this~be included as part of the 1973 General Plan Review. Mrs. -7 ~t has ~en recommended change of land use from R~M to P-A; however, she is §eeking Con~nerci~l. The City Manager.advised that Mrs~ Appleby had~ndicated to the City that she would ,prefer Commercial, but if this c0uld~ot be done, she would like to leave it as it is. Mr. Walker commented that ~t was his udderstanding that this.property is being sold to achureh~ and if t~is is so,- it would fall i~to R-M or P-A zoning. Councilman Kraus moved that we leaye~the land zoned as ~M. ~ Councilman Dwyer indicated .that he wo'uld be more incI~ned to go ahead with P-A zoning. The~motion~w~s~seconded t~{at there be no change, at this ti~e; the motion was carried. Dempsey Property~ Saratoga-Los Gatos Road - It has been.recommended that the zoning be changed to "P-A" from "C~C". It was agreed by-t~e Council . to "strike" this ' m/~~w~'ow~s the property in question. ~te Jim Brown, ~epresentfng the North~es~ Saratoga Homeowner~ Association, indicated that they would like to requestI continuation of the General Plan Review to the next regular meeting. Councilman Bridges ~oved that this public hearing be continued to the next regular meeting; Councilman Kraus seconded the motion and it was carried. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MA~OR 1. Declared the Week of Octobe~ 23rd t~r~ugh Oct0be~°2~th as United Nations 2. It lWas moved by Councilman Dwyer~.and seconded by Counciiman Kraus ~hat the Council express~its supports'of t~e~ica~eral.Syst~m of voting by P.P.C. Councilman Bridges opposed._ The motion was carried. ~,,~ 3.' It wa~M~y~r ~mith an~e~o~ by Councilman Diridon~pport · ~ ~' · the proposition for envfronment~l protection~f'~h'~'~s~f~ne,. l~p~ sf~'i~'~720~.'~C~un~l~a~'D~pp~s~d~The mo~'i~-was-carried~ · ~* 4. It was moved ~y Councilman Dwye~ to adopt-the three measures contained in the City Attorney's analysis regarding th~ "enVironmental impact"~ report; seconded by Councilman Kraus and carried. FINANCE 1. Payment of Claims It was moved by ~ouncilman Dwyer and secondeh by ~oundilman Bridges ~" to approve the list of disbursements and authorize the Mayor to sign the warrants; the motion was carried. C. COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND COMMISSION EPORTS None D.DEPARTMENT HEADSAND OFFICERS None E. CITYMANAGER I. Recommended that Council approve proceeding with the Jcint ~ercise of Powers Agreement for a Law Enforcement Study, with the omission of Los ~tos Hills, the total cost being $22,145. Councilman Dwyer moved that Council accept the revised agreement; Councilman ~aus seconded the motion and it wasI'carried. vn. CO XCATXON -- -+ Ao ORAL ~I f. 'Let[er. rrom J. Barry Gray,' r~que~ting rezoning of the ~orgian House ~opertyOfrom Residential to ~ofessional-~ministrative - Noted and Filed. 2. Letter from Frank W. SChork, Jr.., ~esident Saratoga Manor Homeowners ~sociation, expressing support of the proposed Tierra Oaks Shopping Center - Noted and'Filed. B. OR~ VIII ADJOU~MENT The meeting was adjourned au 12.:05 A.M. to an ~journed RegularsMeeting on Tuesday, October 10, 1972. * ~Three measures regarding "environmental impact" report - 1) Find that all Final Subdivisions and Building Site ~provals for residential uses do not .have a significant impact on the environment; 2) Delegate to Planning Commission the authority to determine (a) whether pe~di~ and future develop- ments will. have significant impact, and if so, the~(b) authority to require "impact"report; 3) Find in any even~ that on all existing Subdivision and Buirding Site ~provalsand Use Permits, almost without exception,.there has always been-such a report, although not necessarily called an ~'ehvironment'al impa~" report. . ~ ~-~'~ ~'~ · · - 11 -